Author
Topic: Shardbound Kickstarter (Read 1778 times)

So I've been looking at this new board-based CCG Shardbound for awhile because it seems interesting. It just entered Kickstarter. I encourage you to check it out yourself.

Apparently it was inspired by games like Final Fantasy Tactics and Fire Emblem.

You may ask why I would care about this when there's already a game out there that does something similar (Duelyst). I enjoy Duelyst but I really don't like the direction they've taken the game.

When it was first designed in the Kickstarter, it wasn't even meant to be a card game, it was supposed to be completely like a FFT-style board based arena TBS game. However it slowly become more and more like Hearthstone as time went on. Which in itself was a bit of a slap in the face to the Kickstarter supporters, but the biggest sin I believe they've committed is in how fast they've made it.

When I first began playing Duelyst the games could go pretty long, but every patch and expansion seems to make the games quicker and more deadly. In the end it just feels like who can rush down the other player first and it takes away from a lot of the strategy and fun of those long, drawn-out brawls.

Shardbound seems like a game that's much slower and more strategic than Duelyst either is or even was meant to be. I'll be keeping my eye on it.

Logged

"Inner peace is the void of expectation. It is the absence of our shared desperation to feel a certain way."

There are multiple reasons I'm not interested in this, despite that the concept sounds nice.First, Twitch. They make Twitch an integral part of the game and go so far that you even get quests via Twitch. People that don't like or use Twitch are pretty much excluded from this. My twitch era is long gone and I'm not itnerested in anything twitch-related anymore. I don't like that Twitch is now a borderline or all competetive card games (or at least the more popular among them) just because Hearthstone made it popular.

Second reason is, it's faction based. Again. I hate this so much but I have to bear it because anybode does it nowadays. Ever since Hearthstone invented this shit, everyone does the same thing. why? because it's simpler to build factions around specific themes and instead of giving the ability to freely create your deck like you want and abalnce the game aroudn it.While this may sound better on the cover, the thing is, factions are pretty much centered around their abilities and their playstyle but that also makes them vulnerable to specific other factions/playstyles and if you face one of this faction you can pretty much say goobye to your victory. Duelyst is a pretty aweful example of this, I really like this game but the different factions hard counter each other in an unbearable way that it's not fun anymore if you fight the same X decks of the Y faction and your deck is of the faction they counter.That's why I stick to games similiar like Magic nowadays. Magic has a kind of pseudo-faction system. You can freely create your deck of any card that are divided into 5 different colors/factions (or factionless) and you can mix factions as you like but you may want to minimize the amount of different factions since you have to gather mana for them.Mabinogi Duels has a similiar system with 5 colors and you can mix colors as you want but you can at max have three different colors in your deck (while in Magic there is no restriction). I don't play Yu-gi-Oh anymore but Yugoh has pretty much no factions at all, just archetypes that work well with similiar cards from the same archetype.

Lastly, time. You say it was a bad thing that Duelyst kind of cranked up the speed of battles (everyone agrees on this, the forums are full of comments about it) and made the game more and more rush based, similiar to what Hearthstone did (until it went in the extreme opposite direction with C'thun and the game wnet to a drag fest). There is a pretty good reason for this. Card games are meant to be played multiple times a day. At least for competetive reasons. As card game you want to get on upper ranks in the ladder, either for show off or because you want the better rewards. But you cannot do this if you play only about 2-3 matches per day. You have to play A LOT, even if you win every single game you start. The longer a match lasts, the less time you can spend on further matches. A person has only a limited amount of free time and not everyone wants to play a single video game a day, they may want to play somethign else too. So if you take 15 minutes per match and can invest only 1 hour per day, you get only 4 matches per day. If a match however takes longer, you may end up with only 2-3 matches per day. Then there is also the factor that you want to do quests to get gold or whatever currency they use. Duelyst quests are now at 8 games per day after the raise. You cannot manage this if you have to play 20-30 minutes per match, even if the matches are more fun because they are more meaningful.Also, longer matches mean a bigger annoyance ont he loosing side. It's already troublesome to loose a match but it's really angering to loose a match that dragged way too long. Pluspoints if you lost because of some stupid rush/burst damage bullshit that you couldn't prevent with your tactical thinking. This is what duelyst does in a way, some battles are long and those who are long are most of the time lost because your oppontent suddenly pulled a card that does direct damage or has rush and you cannot prevent it, even if you had the upper hand before. And these matches are the most annoying.That's also why I took a step back from Pox Nora (at least until the new client is finally released) because matches there take ALWAYS long, even if you are on the loosing end from the beginning. Of course there is a surrender button on each of this games. But most people never consider to use it because they always have hope to draw the card that may change the battle to their liking. The mindset of this is ridiculous because even if you have that card, you will probably not draw it at this point or if you do, your opponent migth as well have a counter to it. After all, he is better prepared then you are. People still do this, hell, even I do this most of the time because just loosing without fighting is shameful. But this drags matches on. And people do this even if they pretty much lost at the first round.

Chronicle found a good solution to this problem. Both players share their round an the game length is always set to 5 rounds because after the fifth round the players fight directly against each other until one dies. Because fo this you cannot except matches to be extremely long, even if both players take their sweet tiem on selecting what cards to play.Mabinogi somehow works aroudn this becuase they feature besides the tradional pvp mode a pve mode where you fight against the decks of other players controlled by the Ai. That way you can play at your own pacing and don't have to worry about the enemy. Pretty much this allows me to play matches while doing somethign else entirely at the same time without the need to stare at the screen every 5 seconds because I have to make my move. Some matches take insanely long because I simply do soemthign else like playing something, watching a movie or talking/chatting with someone. Matches against the Ai are also less troublesome because you don't have to face a dick player that likes to taunt you or drags the game along just to humilate you even more. The Ai will play for win and only this and if you act like a dick, the Ai will catch up.

As an additional note, don't compare any of these games to Final Fantasy Tactis or Fire Emblen nor do except that they even remotely resemble them. There is a reason why these have been single player games. This is a competive card game, the titles you mentioned are tactical rpgs. Just because you can move figures across the board and your tactics influence the outcome of the match does not make it the same experience.

As someone who loves playing CCGs Shardbound didn't really interest me much, the only mechanics that seem different from most of the card games I played are the board battlefield and the twitch-related mechanics that don't really interest me because I rarely use twitch and most of the people I do watch sometimes don't do these kind of games much. That means same mechanics pretty much as some free-to-play games (even a few that aren't really ptw) at a cost and it might end up designed to be ptw (I saw no promises against that) still, or to make it where you have a huge disadvantage if you don't participate in the twitch events. I agree with TheVampire100 that factions aren't as fun generally either, though I prefer longer games because there can be more strategy in them (at least as long as you might consider Magic: The Gathering long).

I played Magic a lot actually but got tired of it over time as I realized the only ways to do well were a. copy the meta decks or b. spend a ridiculous amount of money on your decks. I might still play drafts again sometime though. In addition to more balance, I have a history of being lucky in the two I played, one I got a Chandra, and in the other which was a two-headed giant event for the release of Shadows over Innistrad, I got both a foil Arlin and a nonfoil Arlin. I probably should have sold them and bought two new copies later for less though(I could have potentially gotten 100 dollars, and they got a lot cheaper later on so I would have had a lot more left over). I kept them because I was happy to have gotten two copies of what I was told were the most valuable cards from Shadows Over Innistrad. Also this is pretty unrelated but any suggestions of good free CCGs that aren't pay to win?

Lastly, time. You say it was a bad thing that Duelyst kind of cranked up the speed of battles (everyone agrees on this, the forums are full of comments about it) and made the game more and more rush based, similiar to what Hearthstone did

Which as I said was a terrible way to take the direction.

Now it feels less like strategy and more like who can K.O. the other person faster. A lot of the time, as you said, that just boils down to who has the better cards in hand. If you have the right cards and the right counters you just win.

In other words, the "Control" Archetype has more or less been completely eliminated from Duelyst, which sucks, because that's one of the most enjoyable Archetypes, for any card game. Hell, even HEARTHSTONE has it, and that's a clown fiesta rush garbage card game, but they do have some viable control decks even in that.

Quote

Of course there is a surrender button on each of this games. But most people never consider to use it because they always have hope to draw the card that may change the battle to their liking. The mindset of this is ridiculous because even if you have that card, you will probably not draw it at this point or if you do, your opponent migth as well have a counter to it. After all, he is better prepared then you are. People still do this, hell, even I do this most of the time because just loosing without fighting is shameful.

I guess you make a good point. However, what players do out of their own stupidity (stay in a game that is clearly lost hoping for a 1% chance miracle that could turn the game around because fighting until the bitter end/wasting your time is noble) is really not something the developers can control.

The concede button is there for a reason. Nobody is going to force you to play an entire Chess match when you can just tip over your King at any point. I don't think they should make Chess like "SUPER ADVANCED AWESOME SPEED" just because people are too stubborn to give up. What makes these kinds of games meaningful, in general, are the long, drawn-out brawls that either side could win.

I mean I guess in Chess you can win in a few turns. Those strategies should be viable. But generally speaking I feel like these games need to accept a wide range of playstyles, including those which attempt to take it to lategame.

Now Hearthstone is freaking retarded because you actually have strategies which attempt to completely run your opponent's deck out of cards in order to win. And that is the ONLY card game I know of that does this. Magic the Gathering may have something like this as well but Magic is well Magic, and the developers seem to be straying away from those kinds of strategies in their latest set designs. The point is, there needs to be a balance, and Duelyst has gone way too far the other way.

Quote

Chronicle found a good solution to this problem. Both players share their round an the game length is always set to 5 rounds because after the fifth round the players fight directly against each other until one dies. Because fo this you cannot except matches to be extremely long, even if both players take their sweet tiem on selecting what cards to play.

Actually Gwent has something like this as well. You only play for 3 rounds, and it's best of 3. You really can't drag the game out too long.

Quote

As an additional note, don't compare any of these games to Final Fantasy Tactis or Fire Emblen nor do except that they even remotely resemble them. There is a reason why these have been single player games. This is a competive card game, the titles you mentioned are tactical rpgs. Just because you can move figures across the board and your tactics influence the outcome of the match does not make it the same experience.

I didn't, the developers did.

It's their words not mine. It's on the Kickstarter page.

Quote from: WolfWhiteFire

I played Magic a lot actually but got tired of it over time as I realized the only ways to do well were a. copy the meta decks or b. spend a ridiculous amount of money on your decks. I might still play drafts again sometime though. In addition to more balance, I have a history of being lucky in the two I played, one I got a Chandra, and in the other which was a two-headed giant event for the release of Shadows over Innistrad, I got both a foil Arlin and a nonfoil Arlin. I probably should have sold them and bought two new copies later for less though(I could have potentially gotten 100 dollars, and they got a lot cheaper later on so I would have had a lot more left over). I kept them because I was happy to have gotten two copies of what I was told were the most valuable cards from Shadows Over Innistrad. Also this is pretty unrelated but any suggestions of good free CCGs that aren't pay to win?

If you like Magic and free to play card games that are extremely generous, the game you're looking for is Eternal.

Logged

"Inner peace is the void of expectation. It is the absence of our shared desperation to feel a certain way."

I'm not sure where you got the idea of 5 minute matches, especially if you read the rest of my post where I basically bashed card games that are like that.

I got it from the game's steam store page, it says right on there "Innovative digital mechanics, quick five-minute games, smooth and intuitive tablet play".

Sounds like a selling point, but in practice the games do tend to go longer especially if you're running a control deck.

Quote

It is interesting to see how meta-game considerations like competitions and whatnot are driving design decisions about the games themselves, specifically match length.

I often think there's an urge to make games a bigger and bigger part of our lives, and the resulting tensions (in game design and other things) lead to games that are less fun.

Good point. Often times I think that the reason developers want to make games so short and fast-paced is essentially to trick their playerbase into staying longer.

If they can get people into the mentality of "Oh these games are short, I'll just quit whenever I want to", they can subtly influence people to spend a ton of time playing something they wouldn't have otherwise.

I can see how it would be much more appealing to play a 20 minute game of League of Legends as opposed to an 4 hour session of AI War, even if in the long run people spend the same amount of time playing.

Then there's also the question, like you mentioned, of how developers are designing their games to be the most profitable, and to essentially leverage people to play longer "on accident". So actual game design takes a back seat to profit and popularity.

A good example of this happened to a friend of mine just the other day. Overwatch kind of markets itself as a childish, kiddy shooter with cartoon graphics and lightning quick matches, but make no mistake, that game is just as competitive as any first person shooter I've ever played. Beneath the unassuming theme park veneer is an absolutely brutal title with as much toxicity and try-hardness as I've seen in any game I've ever played.

I asked a friend to play a few quick matches of Homeworld 2 with a group of us, and he said he just needed to win 1 more match in Overwatch before he could play. I jokingly told him that we didn't have all night, but we didn't hear from him after that. My ill-attempt at humor had become a prophecy: He spent countless hours just trying to get that 1 win for a daily quest, and eventually lost 25 games in a row before giving up and retiring for bed that night (screwing himself over for the next day of work in the morning).

When I asked him how this could happen, he said it was his fault. In a competitive game like CS:GO or Insurgency he would never have let it go on for so long, but again, the game's casual appearance had tricked him, leading to a situation of intense frustration in the end.

Logged

"Inner peace is the void of expectation. It is the absence of our shared desperation to feel a certain way."